If you continue to wonder why the "insurgents" in Iraq continue to
blow themselves up to prevent the interim government from gaining credibility
among the populace, please note the report that the new "interim
government" has confessed that Saddam Hussein started the eight-year war
with Iran in 1980. All these years, the people of Iraq believed the war grew
out of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini's call for Iraqi Shiites to overthrown Saddam
in order to install a sectarian Shiite government in Baghdad. And the United
States for all the eight years of the war thought so too, didn't it? Else why
support Iraq in the war, re-opening diplomatic relations with Baghdad, and
sending Don Rumsfeld to pow-wow with Saddam to arrange for military and
financial assistance?

Can it be that practically every member of the new interim
"government" in Baghdad either fought on Iran's side in the war or
was in exile, a la Ahmed Chalabi, openly rooting for the defeat of Iraq by the
Iranians? Hasn't the New York Times, which says it is mystified by the
determination of the insurgents to lay down their lives to preserve chaos,
noticed that the new Baghdad regime is a government of quislings??

It is said that there were a million Iraqi casualties in the war against Iran.
Practically every Iraqi family -- whether Shiite, Sunni or Kurd -- lost a
father, brother or son to Iranian weaponry (conventional and poison gas).
These are the official estimates of the U.S. government, by the way, not my
figures or those of the news media. But the question I raise is how can the Times
consider the insurgency a "mystery" when it must have notice there
is not a genuine nationalist in the new government, one who fought heart and
soul against Tehran. The people of Iraq look over the crowd and see three
dozen replicas of Benedict Arnold -- handpicked by the occupying army.

As for who started the war, you need only ask yourself why Saddam would take
on a country three times the size of Iraq, 60 million to 20 million, without
ever showing the slightest intent of carrying the fight to Tehran. When the
escalating skirmishing grew into open war, the Iraqi army moved several dozen
miles into Iran and stopped, seemingly ready to come to terms. It was the
deranged Ayatollah Khomeini, whose followers overthrew the Shah of Iran (a
client of the U.S. government in the Cold War), who announced upon his return
to Tehran from his exile in Paris, that Saddam Hussein was at the top of his
list of enemies... and it was he who called upon his Shiite followers in Iraq
to change the secular regime in Baghdad, replacing it with a fundamentalist
regime that would make him happy. The Ayatollah is no longer around, of
course, having lost the war with Iraq in August 1988, but if he were he would
be delighted to see the regime change was carried out by the American people,
who sent their sons and daughters to overthrow Saddam and install the puppet
government that now smiles upon Iran.

What a mystery.

* * * * *

By Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 19 - In a move that is likely to inflame further Sunni Arab
resentments, the Iraqi government publicly acknowledged for the first time on
Thursday that Iraq was the aggressor in 1980 when it touched off a bloody
eight-year war with Iran.

In a joint statement at the end of a three-day visit by the Iranian foreign
minister, Kamal Kharazi, the new Shiite-led Iraqi government said that Saddam
Hussein, the overthrown Iraqi leader, and other officials in his government
must be put on trial for committing "military aggression against the
people of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait," as well as crimes against humanity and
war crimes.

It was an effort to bring to a close the bitter legacy of the war in which
nearly a million people were estimated to have died and tens of thousands more
were displaced as refugees.

An Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who helped write the communiqué, Labeed
Abbawi, said the admission was intended not as an acknowledgement of guilt on
the part of the Iraqi state or people, who also suffered staggering casualties
in the war. Rather, he said, it was meant to lay the responsibility for the
war squarely on Mr. Hussein and other leaders of his government, many of whom
face trials later this year for their roles in the killing of Iraqis.

"The file of the war, we want to put it behind us," he said.
"We want to open a new path of cooperation."

Even so, it was a gesture of warmth toward Iran, which has long sought formal
recognition of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against it during the war, and
underscored how the political landscape here has shifted, with Iraqi Shiites,
many of whom spent years in exile in Iran, now running the government.

The statement is not likely to sit well with Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who ran the
country for decades but have been largely left out of the National Assembly,
which will draft the new Iraqi constitution, since boycotting national
elections in January. Shiites control the government for the first time in
modern Iraqi history, and Sunni Arabs, isolated politically, have begun to
chafe under their rule.

Sunni resentment has hardened recently, with a leading Sunni cleric accusing a
government militia, made up largely of Shiites, of carrying out mosque raids
and killings. On Thursday, two Sunni groups called for the temporary closing
of dozens of Baghdad mosques as a protest.

"People will not accept it," said Saleh Mutlak, a member of the
National Dialogue Council, a coalition of Sunni Arab political leaders, of the
admission of responsibility for the war. "It looks like these people want
to pay back the favor that Iran did for them," he said, referring to
Iraq's new government.

Historians still debate the precise reasons for the start of the war between
the two countries in 1980. It began during the Iranian revolution, and some
experts say the new Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agitated for
a religious war to incite Iraq's large Shiite population to rebellion.

Others have accused Mr. Hussein of starting the war, saying he was seeking to
capitalize on the chaos in Iran to overturn a 1975 agreement that fixed what
he considered an unjust border in the Shatt al Arab, the waterway the two
countries share at its southern end, and to seize the oil-rich Iranian
province of Khuzestan.

A United Nations investigation after the war effectively assigned
responsibility for the start of the war to Mr. Hussein, said Farideh Farhi, a
professor of Iranian politics at the University of Hawaii, but Iran's claims
of huge sums in war reparations [remain] unresolved.

Ms. Farhi said the statement Thursday appeared to be directed more at Mr.
Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran, an issue very important to
Iranians. As the Iraqis drew up guidelines for the trials of Mr. Hussein and
other Baath Party leaders, they decided not to extend prosecution to any crime
perpetrated outside Iraq's borders, and Iranians want international
recognition that they suffered under Iraqi gas and chemical weapons attacks.

"The issue for Iranians is not whether or not Iraq is identified as the
aggressor," she said. "That was something that had been settled
before. The issue that is not settled for them is the issue of war crimes.
During the time the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on Iran, the
international community was not willing to take a side on that issue."

Underscoring Iran's ties to the religious leadership in Iraq, Mr. Kharazi
called on the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf
on Thursday. The Iranian minister's visit began on Tuesday, just two days
after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Iraq.